FIFA - death, corruption and football

"For the good of the game" - really??

Regular readers will know that I love football.  Passionately.  My small, local club from where I grew up was on the edge of being relelgated out of the professional English football league altogether 6 years ago, but this year has won promotion to the Premier League.  Next year Bournemouth will be playing against the likes of Manchester United, City and Chelsea.

This concept is as ridiculous as it is amazing.  Or just, amazingly ridiculous.  Through my parents my boyhood team was Manchester United.  AFC Bournemouth were a team I started to watch when I was an older teen because they were local and I had started working so could afford to go.

Following the two clubs was fine, as the idea they would be playing in the same league would be as much a possibility as if I had chosen my second team from Portugal - it was never going to happen.  And yet, here we are.

But then attaching the tag "amazingly ridiculous" is quite fitting with football.  After all, just look at the international governing body for the sport - FIFA.

Football is a passion with many contradictions.  Over the years, aside from the action that has taken place on the pitch, there have been issues regarding racism, homophobia and violence, from both players and fans of the game.

Growing up in the 80s all these things were the norm in football, although thankfully a lot has changed.  The issues are still there, but at least when you hear that a footballer or group of fans have been racist, such as John Terry or Chelsea fans, you are shocked.  In the 80s it was so prevelant it made you sad, but not shocked.

However, there is nothing in the game more appalling than the governing body.  FIFA takes that yard stick and it runs away with it!

At the time of writing the FIFA congress is taking place, and we are in the middle of the voting process to decide the next president of FIFA.  The election is between the current president, Sepp Blatter, and his challenger Prince Ali bin-Hussein of Jordan.

The congress is mired in controversey, although that's nothing new.  FIFA being mired in controversey is like a jam sandwich at a picnic being mired in bees.  You might not like it, but what did you expect?

The big controversey at this time is that shortly before the congress took place a number of FIFA officials have been arrested in Switzerland on behalf of the US Department of Justice looking into accusations of bribery where officials were being paid kick backs by TV executives in order to secure rights to show World Cup matches.

The investigation has apparently been going on for a while, with former FIFA exec member Chuck Blazer, who had quietly pleaded guilty already, wearing a wire to meetings with FIFA officials to help the Dept. of Justice gather evidence.  He'd better stay out of jail for his efforts, because on the inside no one likes a grass!

At the same time the Swiss office of the Attorney General has started an investigation looking in to corruption around the voting process which decided the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World cups, which were Russia and Qatar respectively.

The fact that Russia and Qatar that were selected should be enough to inspire doubt.  First of all Russia - they love annexing parts of other countries but hate the gays.  Not really an inspiring choce to say the least.

But trumping them by some way is Qatar as a choice.  Seriously - Qatar!

In answer to everyone's first question "where???", Qatar is a small oil rich country in the middle east with a population of just over 2 million people.  It is also a country where in the summer temperatures can get as high as 50°c (122° fahrenheit).  A strange, if not insane choice for a host of a football tournament.

But worse than the conditions for playing football itself, are the conditions for workers.  Perhaps you have seen this graphic already being shared on social media:

Needless to say, the statistics are shocking.  According to a report by the Guardian newspaper Immigrant Nepalese workers in Qatar are dying at a rate of 1 person every two days.  They calculate the death toll of Nepalese, Indian and Bangladeshi workers to be 964 in 2012-13.

That should be shocking enough to make FIFA reconsider it's decision to award the tournament to Qatar, but then the death toll of labourers in Qatar will not come as surprise to them, as there would be deaths of workers even without a World Cup.

The International Trade union Confederation estimate there have been over 1200 deaths so far, with another 4000 expected to die by 2022.  Corruption and kick backs are bad enough, but now FIFA have blood on their hands.

Scourge of the poor and oxygen thief Prime Minister David Cameron describes FIFA corruption as the "ugly side of the beautiful game".  And he supports Aston Villa/West Ham/insert football team name here so he knows what he's talking about.

But FIFA appears to beyond reform.  Sepp Blatter is still expected to win the election comfortably.  He has support from the bulk of Asian and African confederation countries after delivering both World Cups in their continents, as well as money for the development of the game.

Some would say that all that money provides much needed investment in the grass roots game in developing countries, others would call it further corruption to enhance Sepp Blatter's power base.  To be honest, both sides of that argument might have a point.

But hey, the fact that 7 officials have been arrested and the election hasn't been postponed at all tells you that this is an organisation without a sense of shame.  I mean, if there is any chance of a shake up it will come because sponsors such as McDonalds have threatened to withdraw their support unless reforms are made.

You know your organisation is evil when you can let McDonalds be the one to take the moral high ground.

Also, Blatter's opponenant is a Jordanian Prince!  FIFA is so backward that it takes a figure from a Feudal system of governance to be seen as a great reformer.

At the end of the day, FIFA may be the governing body, but ordinary football fans do not recognise them as part of their game.  Next year I wll be trying to see as many Bournemouth games, home and away, as I can, and experiencing the wonders that the game can provide.

If the 2022 World Cup does go ahead in Qatar, then I won't be watching it that year.  I love football, but I won't have blood on my hands.

"We are Premier League!!"

Student life, then and now

This week I had an article published online with Now Then Magazine, an arts, culture and politics magazine in Manchester.  In this article I look at the impact of the student population returning to the city, and reflect on how my experience coming to the city in 2001 would compare to today.  Enjoy!

http://nowthenmagazine.com/manchester/issue-13/student-life/

What exactly is militant Liberalism?

The militants lair

Comedian Andrew Lawrence caused something of a minor shit-storm in comedy circles last week by posting on Facebook criticism of comedians appearing on BBC programs such as Mock the Week.  The general gist was that there are a lot of comedians making cheap jokes about UKIP, and he blames a liberal elite within the corporation, and the laziness of comics.

What could have been a contribution to a debate, however incorrect, was somewhat mired with statements bemoaning

"...moronic, liberal back-slapping on panel shows like Mock The Week where aging, balding, fat men, ethnic comedians and women-posing-as-comedians, sit congratulating themselves on how enlightened they are about the fact that UKIP are ridiculous and pathetic."

I think the part that particularly annoyed many was the concept of "women-posing-as-comedians."  It feels almost like he is imagining a producer with a need to fill quotas desperately searching for any woman he can find.  Eventually the char lady has powder applied and, bewildered and blinking under the studio lights, is sat next to Hugh Dennis and told not to break anything.

Contained within the entire statement are a number of breath-taking examples of foetid nonsense.  However, I don't intend on writing specifically in response to Andrew Lawrence, as plenty have already taken up that challenge.

What I will do though is pick up on one particular gem from it all.  He accuses the BBC of "deeply ingrained militant Liberal politics."

What exactly are militant Liberal politics?

The campaign against library closures steps up a notch

For a start I can't imagine an armed struggle being waged by a political faction in the name of liberalism.

A sniper assassinating government advisers on drug policies in a bid to further the aim of de-criminalising marajuana; "Outrage" kidnapping The Queen and forcing her to marry a Lesbian; a "No to page 3" activist pretending to go in for a topless photo shoot only to reveal under her blouse a bomb vest, taking out half of Fleet St.

Doesn't seem too likely does it?

Complaints about the BBC being too Liberal are not uncommon.  We hear it all the time from the likes of the Sun and other right-wing newspapers.  But then, complaining about bias of the corporation against a political position is not just the reserve of the right.

At the height of the anti-war movement against the invasion of Iraq we were always amazed at how you could get so little coverage of demonstrations, despite 10,000's people taking to the streets.  Thousands marching on any subject should surely be newsworthy?

When Israel stepped up it's murderous campaign against Palestinians, activists were again complaining about a pro-Israel bias.  But at the same time Zionists and other supporters of Israel were complaining that it instead had a pro-Palestinian bias!

What that suggests is that while it may not be perfect, and will always make mistakes, maybe the BBC is pretty unbiased after all.

Anyway, the suggestion that UKIP could complain about bias against them from the BBC is ridiculous.  Can anyone remember an episode of Question Time that didn't feature one of their members on the panel?  Whenever immigration is mentioned in any capacity in the news, there always appears to be a UKIP spokesperson on hand.

There is every possibility you may be reading that last bit of criticism of UKIP thinking "but you would say that, you're a Liberal"  To which I would say "get stuffed, I'm not a Liberal!  I'm a Socialist!!"

You can't argue with facts

A liberal wants to gently tweak the already existing Status Quo, where-as I want to change the entire system because it's the system that's at fault.  Agree with me or not but you would have to admit, that's militant!

A few comedians on Mock the Week suggesting Nigel Farage looks like a muppet?  No, that's not militant.  I understand in that context why supporters of right wing parties might complain about their treatment.

I mean, thank God no-one ever mentions Ed Miliband's appearance... oh, wait...

My, my, isn't everything sh*t?

Ever wondered what a shaved Muppet would look like?

Isn't life just grand at the moment?

The Scottish population voted no in the referendum, Ebola has taken countless lives, IS have chopped off a charity workers head and UKIP have their first MP.  Oh, and to top it all off I've had a cold.  Who doesn't love the feeling of waking each morning like a fairy has sand-papered the back of your throat and stuffed your sinuses with wax?

Oh no, wait... that feeling is horrible!  This fever must be going to my head.

International news and politics can seem troublesome at the best of times but gosh, doesn't it all just feel particularly crappy right now?  I had very much nailed my colours to the mast in favour of a Yes vote in the Scottish referendum for a start (as detailed in this POST).

Unfortunately, I had also predicted that the No campaign would win.  Why?  Because despite the campaign being utterly negative, it was the easier thing to do.  The mass of people are not arseholes on purpose, they just go for what they see as the most balanced option.

People want to be balanced.  They want to be fair.  They want to exist in the middle ground, and hate anything they consider to be "extremism".  Unfortunately the centre ground is not a nice place, and the agenda set is not of our making as much as we think it is.

The morning after the referendum result I put on breakfast television to see Nigel Farage.  That's enough to ruin anyone's Corn Flakes.  He was saying, and has been joined by quite a chorus of right wingers since, that now we had the debate around Scottish independence, it was now time for the debate around English independence.

Yes Scotland, you had forgotten about UKIP hadn't you?  They hadn't been mentioned for a few weeks in the hope it would slip your memory that THIS is what being in the Union entails, but tough, they do exist!

Urgh...

What's worse, with the help of the media bosses, they are dragging the centre ground in their direction.  Immigration really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things for the financial fortunes of this country and it's population, but people think it does, and that's enough.

The Labour party should of course be arguing against UKIP's lies, but the truth is that it's the minority who think they sit in the centre that decide elections.  It's not the richest voters or the poorest voters that ultimately effect elections (although the richest always come out on top in this system anyway).  It's the swing voters.  In America it was Ohio, in Britain Tony Blair dubbed this voter "Lexus Man".

Unfortunately, Lexus Man is a dick.

Sure, he's had to tighten his belt as economic pressures have taken hold.  But where-as the poorest are having their benefits cut, being robbed through the bedroom tax, and having to rely on food banks, Lexus man is having to reconsider his holiday plans this year.

The poorest know the Tories are bastards, but Lexus Man swallows everything he reads in the paper and thinks immigrants are to blame.  Added to that he is genuinely scared about Islamic "extremism", so this only furthers his distrust of "others".

Unfortunately, in the current system, Labour know they have to rely on his vote.  That's why they talk tough on immigration.

UKIP will take Labour votes, but no-where near as many as people think.  In the Middleton and Heywood by-election the UKIP vote increased by 36%, placing them second and within just 600+ votes of Labour, who won.  However, the Labour vote actually went up by 1%.

The Tories votes went down by 15%, and the Lib Dems 18%.  This is where the UKIP vote came from.  However, Labour are hoping to win over Lib Dem voters in the next general election.  If a large portion of that vote goes to UKIP, they might well struggle.

But, and this is very important, whenever the main political parties try to "out-UKIP" UKIP, it back-fires.  You cannot simply steal their clothing.  By arguing their agenda, you push their agenda, and it is only UKIP who ultimately win.

Not a real worker, or British - an Irish actor.  Oops.

Of course there will be working class voters who will vote UKIP.  But the most significant part of the traditional Labour vote is being torn apart by the Tories austerity measures.  Don't forget, UKIP are basically the party that look at the Tories and think that they are "too soft"!  Just five minutes reading up on their plans for the NHS is enough to give even the most hardy horror movie fan the shivers.

If Labour want to succeed perhaps they could try displaying principles.  The kind of principles that I know the mass bulk of their membership have.  Perhaps if they argue against the bigoted nonsense of UKIP they can drag the agenda back leftwards, towards the centre again.  Perhaps then Lexus Man might realise that UKIP are just a bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists".

After all, Lexus Man hates extremism, doesn't he?

Scotland - show us how it's done!

A Nation decides

If there's one thing I like to be, it's unique.  Yes - cutting edge. niche.  Yep, that's me.  So here's a blog on the Scottish referendum...

Ok, ok, so this is going to be just one more chirrup emitting from a spring meadow full of rutting Crickets.  I realise that.  However, this is also a subject I feel passionately about.  I may be English born and bred, but I very strongly believe that Scotland should vote for independence.

Am I alone in taking this position?  Hardly.  But there do seem to be a lot of English people I know (can't move for 'em!) that seem to be taking the existence of the referendum as a personal slur.  In a "how dare they not want to be British like me.  What's wrong with me?"

First of all, have you seen our government?  The fear we seem to have about our identity that makes us paranoid that the Scottish don't want to be our friends any more is displayed in our voting.  It's led by fear all the way.

We voted the Tories in to power, despite them only representing the "1%".  Very much the nasty party they are slashing benefits and privatising off our public services.  In opposition is Labour, a party created by the workers, who only continue to vote for them because the alternative is the Tories.  And the party of opposition?  UKIP.  The definitive party of fear itself.

Fear has also griped the referendum in Scotland, perpetuated by the NO campaign.  Their arguments for Scotland to remain in the union is mostly centred around what currency could be used, which at it's root is essentially going "do you want the Euro??"

Talk of how much money Scotland gets in subsidies is also an issue.  It's true that the Barnett Formula (look it up if you want your head scrambled) is unfairly in Scotland's favour over other countries in the UK.  However, the simple fact is that at current rates, oil and gas revenues which would be in Scotland's hands mean that they would be better off financially per head of population compared to staying as part of the UK.

This is, genuinely, the best people they've got.

Not all arguments for the NO campaign are as base as this.  I heard a Scottish University Professor on Radio 4 this afternoon explaining that he would be voting to stay as part of the Union because he felt he had as much in common with people in England and Wales as he did with people in Scotland.

This is fair enough.  An intelligent person explaining simply that he doesn't believe in Nationalism.  I feel exactly the same, but then I also feel the same connection with working people in France, America, India... basically the world over.

The truth is, whilst it may be the motivation for some, this vote is too important to just be about national identity or receiving a slight increase in public spending.

The reason the Scottish should vote for independence is that the system they would have would be so much better.  The system of Proportional Representation is more democratic for a start.  But better than that, the Tories are only the third party, it is dominated by the SNP (who are a social democratic party) and Scottish Labour.

Since devolution, the Labour party in Scotland have been much more left wing than in the rest of Britain precisely because their opposition has been the SNP rather than the Tories.  What powers they have had has been put to much better use than what the parties in the rest of the UK have managed to do.

The world we live in means this couldn't be a perfect system, but it could be so much better.  An alternative to the slash and burn austerity that the Tories favour so much.  It's not without merit that Alex Salmond suggests that the NHS would be safer in an independent Scotland than left to the UK government.

I fear that the NO campaign will win because undecided voters when faced with a choice will go with what seems like the safer, more conservative option.  But my God I hope they make the strong choice.

Vote for independence and show us in the rest of the UK what can be done in a world where the Tories are barely relevant.  This will only happen if they choose to reject the politics of fear.  Hopefully, we might be able to follow their example and do the same.

YES!!!